On the resurgence of Scarlett Johansson

Fun fact: it's 10 years ago to the day that Sofia Coppola's "Lost in Translation" went on limited release in Los Angeles, mere days after doing the Venice-Telluride-Toronto stretch that was a rarer feat for prestige films then than it is now. In some respects, it does feel that long since we first laid eyes on Coppola's woozy Tokyo kinda-love story, which is not to say it doesn't hold up rather beautifully. The director's three subsequent films, albeit variations on a consistent theme, exhibit an arc of wearied, cooled maturity, while indie film festivals are still awash with atmospheric imitators that may or may not know the source of Coppola's own cribbing.

What doesn't feel a decade old, however, is the accompanying avalanche of Next Big Thing hype for one Scarlett Johansson, then just 18 years of age. The New Yorker with the odd, implacable gaze hadn't exactly come out of nowhere. Two years before, she'd made attentive critics' one-to-watch lists with droll, gangly turns in "Ghost World" and "The Man Who Wasn't There"; five years earlier than that, she'd scored a precocious Best Actress nod at the Independent Spirit Awards for her turn as a pre-teen runaway in "Manny and Lo."

From "The Horse Whisperer" to "Eight Legged Freaks," then, Hollywood had seemingly been ready for the talented teen for some time. The media, however, hadn't, and proceeded to shower such superlatives on Johansson and her very fine (and very fine-textured) performances in "Lost in Translation" and another fall festival discovery, "Girl With a Pearl Earring," that one began to fear for the girl. Excellent though she was as, respectively, a lonely, prematurely married modern hipster and Johannes Vermeer's 17th-century working-class muse, both roles demanded a similarly taciturn, liquid-eyed intensity of her. There was ample reason to suspect we hadn't seen the half of what she could do.

SAG and the Academy, perhaps distracted by a confusing campaign to pass off Johansson as a supporting actress in "Translation" and thereby nab her twin nominations, decided they'd wait to see that undiscovered half, nominating her for neither film. (They're still waiting; 10 years on, she remains unnominated.) They were among the very few not fuelling the hype. The Golden Globes nominated her in both the drama and comedy fields, while the BAFTAs -- and it's funny how swiftly this gets forgotten -- handed her their Best Actress award for Coppola's film, beating out, among others, herself for "Earring." Sundry magazine covers were an additional prize.

Having crowned its new princess, the industry then, as is its wont, ran almost immediately out of ideas of what do with her. The next two years brought misconceived vehicles of various shapes and sizes -- small and creaky ("A Good Woman"), medium and thankless ("In Good Company") and large and boneheaded ("The Island") -- none of which even permitted Johansson to be bad in compelling ways. The Globe voters, sticking doggedly to the narrative, tossed her another nomination for the limp indie "A Love Song for Bobby Long" -- they might remain the largest group of people to have seen it.

Temporary respite came from the unpredictable figure of Woody Allen: his London-set moral thriller "Match Point" provoked a flushed, angry sexuality in the actress that her more demure breakthrough roles hadn't, duly (and this time deservedly) landing her a fourth Globe nod. It was a welcome indication that the actress, in addition to looking at certain angles like an Old Hollywood bombshell, could act at certain angles like one too. While she assumed the mantle of Woody's Muse, however, the director seemed less engaged by her later on, penning her pretty featureless characters in their follow-up collaborations "Scoop" and "Vicky Cristina Barcelona."

If Woody lost interest, so, it seemed did most others: she made a pleasing femme fatale in Brian De Palma's undervalued "The Black Dahlia," though she didn't seem to have been directed so much as art-directed. And that was a higher point of a late-2000s run that peaked in respectability with a left-blank-for-your-message role in Christopher Nolan's "The Prestige," and bottomed out with such admittedly diverse calamities as "The Nanny Diaries," "The Other Boleyn Girl" and "The Spirit."

I know, newsflash: Hollywood has a dearth of intelligent, identifiably human roles to offer young actresses, even (or perhaps especially) one who meets its physical ideals as obligingly as Johansson. Yet it's amazing how swiftly the counter-narrative set in across the internet that the woman couldn't act; that the moody, impassive mien we were used to seeing from her marked the narrowness of her natural ability, not of what directors and their projects demanded of her. "You're kidding, right?" came the response of several readers when, in 2009, I included Johansson's name on a list of the 10 best actors under 30. It's a standard backlash pattern: many of the same observers who perhaps glided too easily past her limitations following her 2003 breakthrough now seemed incapable of admitting any of her virtues.

Guy Lodge is a South African-born critic and sometime screenwriter. In addition to his work at In Contention, he is a freelance contributor to Variety, Time Out, Empire and The Guardian. He lives well beyond his means in London.

I'm glad Scarlett is finally making better choices and I hope she continues to prove her critics wrong. I became a big fan not just through the double-combo of LiT and "Girl with a Pearl Earring" as the former would become my all-time favorite film. I also realized the promise that she had in not just films like "Manny & Lo", "The Horse Whisperer", "The Man Who Wasn't There", "Ghost World", and "An American Rhapsody" was going to be fulfilled.

While I did like "In Good Company", "The Spongebob Squarepants Movie", "Match Point", "The Prestige", and "Vicky Cristina Barcelona" as well as her performances in "The Perfect Score", "A Love Song for Bobby Long", "Scoop", and "A Good Woman". Things did sour not just through some of her choices in such awful dreck like "The Island", "The Spirit", "The Nanny Diaries", "He's Just Not That Into You", and other films. I felt like people are more paying attention to her looks and her sex appeal and not enough comments about her acting range.

I started to sort of give up after a while until "The Avengers" as she really did something in that film and then, I saw "We Bought a Zoo" on TV and she stood out. W/ "Don Jon", "Her", and "Under the Skin", I'm glad she's ready to show the world once again why she's so good. Right now, the acting world needs less Kate Hudsons and Blake Livelys and more talented actresses like Scarlett and Jena Malone.

"I'm glad Scarlett is finally making better choices and I hope she continues to prove her critics wrong."

^ Ditto.

I think making wise film choices and directors knowing what to do with their actors are amongst the main things that help make or break talented actors. Lost in Translation was such a moving, powerful movie, it hit SUCH a chord with me that I find it hard to believe it was released ten years ago, or that Johannson was only eighteen at its release. This may be largely fan-loyalty, however it has always made me think she was a really great actress just in generally uninspired movies from what I had seen, and some possibly poor choices (in movies that I then decided not to make a point of seeing). Then movies like The Spirit were ones that promised the world yet ended up torpedoing despite all the goodwill and hype leading up to them. Even good actors do not often get many chances to rebound from something like that.

I tend to think Hollywood is fickle, and a LOT has to do with lining up the right movie, director, and cast. Look at Scarlett Johansson as Black Widow. Had the Marvel movies NOT had a great director (in Iron Man 2 and The Avengers), she could have been a cliche' throw-away character. How often do secondary characters in comic book movies end up being career jump-starts for actors? Not often, especially not at that level.

Where I think Johansson is smart, kind of like how I view Michael Fassbender, is how she is making interesting film choices. She is not just playing some role that will pigeon hole her into a type-cast role or that will just be some possibly successful yet largely forgettable role. It almost feels like these roles are an audition for more challenging, artistic, interesting roles. I admire that quite a bit.

To me, Lost in Translation was a true impact movie for me. It seemed a reinvention of Bill Murray and a defining moment for Johansson. It stands as one of my all-time favorite movies, just a beautiful piece. I tend to agree with you that per potential was unfulfilled in a lot of her later roles. While that may have caused her to be overlooked, sometimes when an actor is truly talented all it takes is one good role to remind us how good they are and that it is often about putting good pieces together to make these things work and not just that an actor/director/etc. are washed up or one-hit-wonders. I wish Hollywood seemed to recognize this more often instead of buying into what feels like its own hype sometimes.

Regardless, I am happy to see Johansson get recognition for the work she is doing, and excited to see her making what are to me some pretty great film choices. I wish her the best.

@Guy, could be. What do you think was the tipping point that led to her being given those better options? The Woody Allen films, Iron Man 2, something else? I just find it astonishing that after Lost in Translation she did not have boundless choices in terms of more artistic, challenging, nuanced roles than some of the ones she chose or was offered. Not that they were all bad or unsuccessful choices, just that they seemed anti-climactic or not obvious follow-up roles (to me at least) for somebody who kind of blew away a lot of people with such a highly-praised role as Charlotte opposite Bill Murray and enhancing his role (again, to me at least, both seemed to amplify the others' performance).

That was not really a question, just more of a rant. You could be 100% accurate. It still just kind of blows my mind.

Yes, that Deadline article is conflating the two, and making a bit of a mountain out of a molehill. The Japanese simply chose a different film from the one we expected. Happens all the time, *especially* with Japan.

It warms my heart to read this. I always thought she has something special, but she just wasn't very lucky with the roles. I've often read that she clashed with some directors about her characters and unfortunately ended up with the short end of the stick. I'm glad something good came out of high profile superhero movies. She's IN again, and able to take on the roles she wants and have more freedom with them. Hopefully she'll snag an Oscar soon. I'd love to see that.

Loved this read. And I am so happy that Scarlett is finding her way again; not that I think she did anything awful, mind you. Aside from her GG/BAFTA nominated work, I also enjoyed Horse Whisperer, A Good Woman, Love Song for Bobby Long (really loved that in particular), etc.. She's won a Tony.

I don't know, She just has that something. She's gorgeous, but not girl next door. She looks like she'd be aloof/conceited, but I've never felt her to be that way.

And look at her last few roles, The Avengers (wow), Under Your Skin (sounds fascinating), and she looks hysterical in Don Jon. Awards recognition or not, and sans a few iffy choices, I'm just impressed by the diversity and ambition of a lot of the roles she takes.